Reasons to vote NO to Lisbon

Sam Vimes

Gone Drinking wrote: »

Someone in work told me this morning, the reason he's voting No is because if it went ahead, it would mean companies in Poland (just an example he gave) could open operations here, and pay their staff here what they are paid in Poland. Meaning they could undercut Irish companys in tenders and what not..

Any truth in this?

Nope, it's a lie from a religious fundamentalist group called Coir which is kind of half supported by the socialists (the lie, not the group). You might have seen the "€1.84 minimum wage" posters around. No truth whatsoever.

It's a shame to see a vote wasted on a lie

PopeBuckfastXVI

Gone Drinking wrote: »

Someone in work told me this morning, the reason he's voting No is because if it went ahead, it would mean companies in Poland (just an example he gave) could open operations here, and pay their staff here what they are paid in Poland. Meaning they could undercut Irish companys in tenders and what not..

Any truth in this?

No it's not true at all, under EU and Irish law anyone working in the Irish state must be paid at least the minimum wage (or collective minimum wage, like the builders, who have a higher minimum wage) in Ireland.

This is covered by the European Posted Workers Directive, and the Irish Minimum Wage Act 2000

Nulty

Sam I think your earning your keep here. I cant seem to find any reasons to vote no. It seems that our "Opt out" has us covered on many things that may not agree with this countries interests. The QMV mostly changes with respect to things we can abstain from (Asylum, Immigration).

I'm not going to vote until I've read everything I possibly can. No seems paper thin right now

Sam Vimes

Nulty wrote: »

I'm not going to vote until I've read everything I possibly can. No seems paper thin right now

It is, it really is. Other than the QMV move which is an ideological objection all those anti-EU groups couldn't find anything in the treaty that would make us vote no to it which is why they have to make stuff up

Nulty

Am I right in understanding that Co-Decision will be moved from just the Councel of Minister to jointly with the Parliament; or from just the Parliament to Jointly with the CoM? This is with respect to Asylum, Immigration and Agriculture...

Gone Drinking

Cheers lads, for clearing that up for me.

marco_polo

Irish and Proud wrote: »

...well, if the size of the Commission has to be reduced, surely the best thing would be a smaller commission that is elected by the EU people - such a commission could still have a president (maybe a rotating one every year - eligibility for president would be based on popular vote at the time of the previous commissioner elections). Eligibility for commission candidates could be rotational for all countries. One way to reduce localised politics would be to disallow any elector from choosing a candidate from his/her own country - each candidate would get an equal allocation from the EU for campaigning purposes - no other donations (even in kind donations) would be allowed. Breaches of such rules (on donations) in any capacity should be punishable with a 10 year prison sentence - no ifs or buts. Also, a straight past the post system of election should be used instead of proportional representation.

Regards!

The whole purpose of the commission is to keep them as apolitical as possible, so they will act in the best intrests of the EU when proposing legislation and not to to be motivated by trying to pander to an electorate.

The role of the EU Council vote is to make sure that the proposed legislation is in the interests of the member states, and the parliament vote to ensure that it is in the best interests of its citizens.

Sam Vimes

Nulty wrote: »

Am I right in understanding that Co-Decision will be moved from just the Councel of Minister to jointly with the Parliament; or from just the Parliament to Jointly with the CoM? This is with respect to Asylum, Immigration and Agriculture...

Afaik it's partially moving from the council to the parliament. It's covered on sink's excellent 10 real reasons to vote yes post:

1. Increase of power to the European Parliament

The European Parliament is the only directly elected body of the EU and as such is the most democratic; the Treaty of Lisbon will increase the power of the European Parliament. The parliament currently votes on only 80% legislation, the Treaty of Lisbon increases this to 95%; this is known as the ordinary legislative procedure.[Many Articles, TFEU] The parliament currently only approves 20% of the budget; this will be increased to 100%.[Article 314, TFEU

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61327732&postcount=1

edit: also, I think you're confusing co-decision with QMV.

Or am i?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Nulty wrote: »

Am I right in understanding that Co-Decision will be moved from just the Councel of Minister to jointly with the Parliament; or from just the Parliament to Jointly with the CoM? This is with respect to Asylum, Immigration and Agriculture...

From just the European Council (the Governments), to the European Council + the European Parliament (our MEP's).

We have an opt-out on immigration issues (the votes won't apply to us), which the government can opt-in if they decide to, at some point in the future.

marco_polo

Nulty wrote: »

Am I right in understanding that Co-Decision will be moved from just the Councel of Minister to jointly with the Parliament; or from just the Parliament to Jointly with the CoM? This is with respect to Asylum, Immigration and Agriculture...

Co dedcision is the process where both the Parliament and the Council have a vote. Nearly everything outside of Defence and Foreign policy will be subject to this process after Lisbon. Thae amount is in the region of 95% or so, not sure on the current figure but I bellieve it is in the 60%-70% (EDIT: 80% thanks Sam) region.

rumour

Gone Drinking wrote: »

Someone in work told me this morning, the reason he's voting No is because if it went ahead, it would mean companies in Poland (just an example he gave) could open operations here, and pay their staff here what they are paid in Poland. Meaning they could undercut Irish companys in tenders and what not..

Any truth in this?

This is not specifically correct.

1. The scenario exists now so LISBON does not change that.
2. Companies from accross Europe can legally tender for work in any member state.
3. There are quite a few conditions to do do this. To numerous to list now and often so much so that (in Irelands) case unless we have another boom they are not viable.
4. LISBON HAS NO EFFECT ON THESE ARRANGEMENTS.
5. Arguably (and this is the debate) Lisbon may make these legal arrangements in Irelands case more difficult to change.

Hope this clarifies the issue.

Nulty

Ok

Parliament - Elected by the people

Council of Ministers - Representative of each Governments cabinet depending on issue

Eu Council - Heads of each european state. President is voted on by head of each member state. Is QMV involved in presidential election? Ok, yes it is.

Commission - One from each member state (under Lisbon) Who appoints them?

Sam Vimes

Nulty wrote: »

Ok

Parliament - Elected by the people

Yes

Nulty wrote: »

Council of Ministers - Representative of each Governments cabinet depending on issue

Yes, if it's a finance issue Brian Lenihan goes etc

Nulty wrote: »

Eu Council - Heads of each european state. President is voted on by head of each member state. Is QMV involved in presidential election?

The president currently rotates every 6 months and will be voted on if Lisbon passes and the term is 2.5 years extendible to 5. Afaik it will be by QMV but the presidency is a ceremonial role like the Ceann Comhairle and has no legislative power. It's a chairman type role but the French don't have that word so they use president of the council, as in he presides over the council.
Some people are terrified of Tony Blair getting this position but he's already been president before!

edit: it is QMV:
http://grahnlaw.blogspot.com/2009/03/lisbon-treaty-european-council_22.html

5. The European Council shall elect its President, by a qualified majority, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. In the event of an impediment or serious misconduct, the European Council can end the President's term of office in accordance with the same procedure.

Nulty wrote: »

Commission - One from each member state (under Lisbon) Who appoints them?

The governments nominate a commissioner but the parliament(?) can refuse to accept their nomination. I'm not sure if it's the parliament but their nomination can be rejected anyway

edit: it is the parliament:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament

It has, however, had control over the EU budget (minus agriculture) since the 1970s and has a veto over the appointment of the European Commission.[4]

marco_polo

rumour wrote: »

This is not specifically correct.

1. The scenario exists now so LISBON does not change that.
2. Companies from accross Europe can legally tender for work in any member state.
3. There are quite a few conditions to do do this. To numerous to list now and often so much so that (in Irelands) case unless we have another boom they are not viable.
4. LISBON HAS NO EFFECT ON THESE ARRANGEMENTS.
5. Arguably (and this is the debate) Lisbon may make these legal arrangements in Irelands case more difficult to change.

Hope this clarifies the issue.

Just to point out to the poster you were replying to, that the situation he described doesn't exist even now as we have a universialy applicable statutory minimum wage, and on top of that numerous statutory collective agreements iregistered in the Labour court covering a wide number of sectors.

Temporary Polish/latvian etc plumber wage* = Irish plumber wage

Note: not Irish minimum wage but constrution sector legal agreed union rates.

Irish and Proud

Gone Drinking wrote: »

Someone in work told me this morning, the reason he's voting No is because if it went ahead, it would mean companies in Poland (just an example he gave) could open operations here, and pay their staff here what they are paid in Poland. Meaning they could undercut Irish companys in tenders and what not..

Any truth in this?

The minimum wage is the law (as of now) for Irish Registered Companies. However, foreign contractors may employ people here based on the laws according to their country of origin. This was stated in a European Court ruling a while back. Irish Ferries (are they now registered with the Bahamas or something?) are employing workers at lower wages. If this is the case, then our minimum wage will come under extreme pressure - now I doubt it will drop to €1.84, but it may have to be reduced.

In short, Coir is not telling the full truth, and the yes camp is also being very economical with the truth - they say the minimum wage is the law - full stop! :rolleyes:

Anyway, I voted No!

Regards!

Sam Vimes

Irish and Proud wrote: »

The minimum wage is the law (as of now) for Irish Registered Companies. However, foreign contractors may employ people here based on the laws according to their country of origin. This was stated in a European Court ruling a while back. Irish Ferries (are they now registered with the Bahamas or something?) are employing workers at lower wages. If this is the case, then our minimum wage will come under extreme pressure - now I doubt it will drop to €1.84, but it may have to be reduced.

In short, Coir is not telling the full truth, and the yes camp is also being very economical with the truth - they say the minimum wage is the law - full stop! :rolleyes:

Anyway, I voted No!

Regards!

The judgement he is talking about is the Laval judgement and it could not possibly happen here because it was specific to the laws of Sweden, who do not have a legal minimum wage. I am not being economical with the truth in any way

Also, these judgements have already happened and so cannot be brought into effect by a treaty that hasn't been ratified yet so it's not a reason to vote no

Sam Vimes

http://www.generationyes.ie/2009/09/11/guest-blog-5-lisbon-treaty-and-workers-rights-by-roderic-ogorman/

The Posting of Workers Directive makes it very clear that if a national minimum wage is set out in national legislation, workers posted to that country from another member state must be paid that minimum wage. As such, the Vote No posters claiming that Lisbon will lead to a minimum wage of €1.84 are completely untrue. In Laval and Ruffert, the national legislation (in Sweden and Germany respectively) did not clearly set out the minimum wage. As a result, the countries lost these cases. Action is already being taken in Sweden to change the law to ensure this situation doesn’t arise again.

Another issue concerns collective action and the right to strike. At present, nowhere in the Treaties is a right to strike protected. If Lisbon is passed, it will give legal effect to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Article 28 of the Charter enshrines workers rights to take collective action including the right to strike.

This question of a right to strike came up in the Viking and Laval cases. In both of these cases the ECJ balanced the rights of workers against the right of companies to provide services in another member state. While Article 28 of the Charter was mentioned briefly in both cases, the ECJ couldn’t actually apply it as the Charter does not yet have legal effect.

As a result, the ECJ was balancing the very strong protection of the rights of companies against the current much weaker position of workers. Unsurprisingly, trade unions across the Member States were not happy with this approach. However if Lisbon is passed and the Charter is given legal effect, its strong protection of the rights of workers will enable the Court to be much more vigorous in protecting workers’ rights when these come into conflict with the economic rights of companies.

Irish and Proud

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hi there,

On self-amendment:
This is referring to Article 48 which allows a mechanism for the treaties to be changed without convening an intergovernmental conference and writing a formal new treaty. Where any changes come through this mechanism they must be ratified by every member state 'in accordance with their constitutional requirements. In Ireland this means that if the EU is granted any new power by the member states, or any increase in existing power our constitution demands we have a referendum.

On the primacy of EU law:
Here is the existing article 29.4.10°:

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.htm

Look familiar? It's been there since 1973.

I'll must look into the self amending clause - I just wonder that if there is no 'Treaty' in relation to changes within the EU, would our constitution require a referendum or could the Dail ratify the said changes without the consent of the Irish People.

Regards!

marco_polo

The minimum wage is for every single worker working in the state.

You are displaying a fundamental ignorance of the ECJ decisions, the Irish Ferries was a case of a sea faring vessel being reflagged under international law .

Sneaky and underhanded yes.

Anything the EU can do about a ship being re-registered in another country. No.

This situation does not apply in any way shape or form to other land based sectors.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

The minimum wage is the law (as of now) for Irish Registered Companies. However, foreign contractors may employ people here based on the laws according to their country of origin. This was stated in a European Court ruling a while back. Irish Ferries (are they now registered with the Bahamas or something?) are employing workers at lower wages. If this is the case, then our minimum wage will come under extreme pressure - now I doubt it will drop to €1.84, but it may have to be reduced.

In short, Coir is not telling the full truth, and the yes camp is also being very economical with the truth - they say the minimum wage is the law - full stop! :rolleyes:

Anyway, I voted No!

Regards!

marco_polo wrote: »

Just to point out to the poster you were replying to, that the situation he described doesn't exist even now as we have a universialy applicable statutory minimum wage, and on top of that numerous statutory collective agreements iregistered in the Labour court covering a wide number of sectors.

Temporary Polish/latvian etc plumber wage* = Irish plumber wage

Note: not Irish minimum wage but constrution sector legal agreed union rates.

Sam Vimes

Irish and Proud wrote: »

I'll must look into the self amending clause - I just wonder that if there is no 'Treaty' in relation to changes within the EU, would our constitution require a referendum or could the Dail ratify the said changes without the consent of the Irish People.

Regards!

The clause is not self amending as has been explained to you.

Whether it would require a referendum would depend on the issue, just like the government can change some laws on their own but need a referendum for others. Please stop spreading FUD

And if the government does something you don't like you can vote them out.

P. Breathnach

Irish and Proud wrote: »

I'll must look into the self amending clause - I just wonder that if there is no 'Treaty' in relation to changes within the EU, would our constitution require a referendum or could the Dail ratify the said changes without the consent of the Irish People.

Regards!

Whether or not an amendment requires a referendum here is entirely a matter of Irish law, and that is not being changed. As things are at present (under existing treaties) some amendments would not need a referendum. It is only amendments that confer additional competencies on the EU that would need a referendum here, and amendments made under the simplified procedure (commonly misrepresented as the "self-amending clause") cannot do that. Amendments made under the simplified procedure would still need to be ratified in each state in accordance with their own constitutional requirements. In Ireland's case, that means parliamentary ratification.

In summary:
- Amendments granting additional competencies to the EU require a referendum here, and that is not being changed.
- Amendments not granting additional competencies to the EU do not require a referendum here, and that is not being changed.

Irish and Proud

marco_polo wrote: »

The minimum wage is for every single worker working in the state.

You are displaying a fundamental ignorance of the ECJ decisions, the Irish Ferries was a case of a sea faring vessel being reflagged under international law .

Sneaky and underhanded yes.

Anything the EU can do about a ship being re-registered in another country. No.

This situation does not apply in any way shape or form to other land based sectors.

Another half truth mate -

Yes, there is an oversight on my part alright, but if Irish Ferries got away with lower wages under international law (which does not affect working on land), what would be the implications of lower wage contractors working in an open market across the EU - contractors that can employ people on their terms (as in the country of origin) on land (which could affect everybody here) - according to an EU court ruling. Do we not need to shout stop and stop any possibility of a race to the bottom - the minimum wage may be law for Irish registered companies, but in accordance to a ruling over a school building project (was it in Sweden?) a foreign contractor was entitled to the contract, and under the laws of the country of origin. If foreign contractors can do the same here...

Regards!


Regards!

Sam Vimes

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Another half truth mate -

Yes, there is an oversight on my part alright, but if Irish Ferries got away with lower wages under international law (which does not affect working on land), what would be the implications of lower wage contractors working in an open market across the EU - contractors that can employ people on their terms (as in the country of origin) on land (which could affect everybody here) - according to an EU court ruling. Do we not need to shout stop and stop any possibility of a race to the bottom - the minimum wage may be law for Irish registered companies, but in accordance to a ruling over a school building project (was it in Sweden?) a foreign contractor was entitled to the contract, and under the laws of the country of origin. If foreign contractors can do the same here...

It really doesn't matter if any of that is true, which it's not, because even if it is, it has nothing to do with the treaty. Please stop spreading completely unfounded fear, uncertainty and doubt as you have been doing for quite some time now

Irish and Proud

Why are you being so defensive?

I am only asking about aspects which concern me and others - people do have a right to ask questions - after all, we are voting on something that is very important to this country - something that will alter the course of history.

If what you all say is true (and maybe it is), why then were the peoples of Europe denied their right to have a say in something that equally affects them? What are the politicians trying to hide? - If this treaty is a good thing, it is still undemocratic which is why I voted No!

I any case (if the treaty is good or not - time would tell if there is a yes vote), I would not take anything from politicians these days - they're all gangsters!

Well, in any case, I voted No!

Regards!

Sam Vimes

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Why are you being so defensive?

Because these issues have been clarified for you before and you continue to put them forward. You're going to get the same response each time you put them forward because they remain unfounded for exactly the same reasons.

Sam Vimes

Irish and Proud wrote: »

If what you all say is true (and maybe it is), why then were the peoples of Europe denied their right to have a say in something that equally affects them? What are the politicians trying to hide? - If this treaty is a good thing, it is still undemocratic which is why I voted No!

Our governments make decisions every day that have ramifications a thousand times greater than this treaty. Other countries have referendums on issues that we don't and we have referendums on some things they don't. That's democracy for you

marco_polo

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Another half truth mate -

Yes, there is an oversight on my part alright, but if Irish Ferries got away with lower wages under international law (which does not affect working on land), what would be the implications of lower wage contractors working in an open market across the EU - contractors that can employ people on their terms (as in the country of origin) on land (which could affect everybody here) - according to an EU court ruling. Do we not need to shout stop and stop any possibility of a race to the bottom - the minimum wage may be law for Irish registered companies, but in accordance to a ruling over a school building project (was it in Sweden?) a foreign contractor was entitled to the contract, and under the laws of the country of origin. If foreign contractors can do the same here...

Regards!


Regards!

No half truth at all, except those posted by you. The Posting of Workers Directive is very clear that the minimum legal conditions of the destination country where a worker is poster must be applied to all workers temporarly working in a country. For a Foreign constrution worker here that legal rate is the same as an Irish construction worker.

Under no circumstances may the terms and conditions of the worker country of orign be applied in another EU state, unless those terms are higher than the legal minimum in the destination country. (ie your cannot be forced to take a temporary pay cut while abroad either)

In the laval judgement the Sweedish minimum wage was effectively 0 as the collective agreements were not llegally binding, the Latvian workers rate in at home was higher than 0 hence they could be paid the country of origin rate.

To repeat again we have both a minimum wage and a range of legally binding collective agreements lodged in the Labour court.

Irish and Proud

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Our governments make decisions every day that have ramifications a thousand times greater than this treaty. Other countries have referendums on issues that we don't and we have referendums on some things they don't. That's democracy for you

No it is not!!!

Politicians do not serve their peoples - how many times have I to say that???

Many people want a referendum on Lisbon, but only the Irish are getting a say in it - disgusting!!! Today, the destiny of 500m people will be decided by 3m - how could anyone with an ounce of morality suggest that we put something as significant as the Lisbon Treaty through against the will of so many?

Democracy goes before Economics!

Regards!

Sam Vimes

Irish and Proud wrote: »

No it is not!!!

Politicians do not serve their peoples - how many times have I to say that???

Many people want a referendum on Lisbon, but only the Irish are getting a say in it - disgusting!!! Today, the destiny of 500m people will be decided by 3m - how could anyone with an ounce of morality suggest that we put something as significant as the Lisbon Treaty through against the will of so many?

Democracy goes before Economics!

Regards!

Give it up man. There's only 4 and a half hours til the polls close

marco_polo

Irish and Proud wrote: »

No it is not!!!

Politicians do not serve their peoples - how many times have I to say that???

Many people want a referendum on Lisbon, but only the Irish are getting a say in it - disgusting!!! Today, the destiny of 500m people will be decided by 3m - how could anyone with an ounce of morality suggest that we put something as significant as the Lisbon Treaty through against the will of so many?

Democracy goes before Economics!

Regards!

Because once you subtract all the imaginary stuff that is not actually in there at all, it is not particularly signifigant.